Editorial: If the ceasefire holds, Donald Trump’s ill-starred foray into the Middle East will have left the Iranian regime stronger than it was before the conflict
They won the opening act, and the operation was one of the best ever pulled off but they lost the overall conflict when they had to abandon Iraq. Although Gulf War 1 and 2 are studied as examples of great execution of a military strike campaign. The issue is that unlike the Gulf Wars where the us did strikes then claimed the win (with some oil set on fire), in 2003 they did the strikes, then stuck around. The us never wins in a conflict where they have to hold conquered ground, they are really bad with it. I can’t think of a time they have succeeded, WW1 and 2 they did not have to hold territory alone, and more or less liberated and joint occupied places, in Korea they fucked up and got China involved leading to a never ending conflict that is still technically going, they got their ass kicked out of Vietnam, Bay of pigs was a failure before it really got anywhere, and then there is Afghanistan a total mess.
The wild part to me is that a lot of these conflicts are listed as US wins, or inconclusive when by any real measure they where all massive fuck ups. This last one with Iran did not even get to a point where the US was even getting to the point they where threatened Iran’s government, let alone an occupation. Like it was not even possible for the states to get to the point of prior wars before, no real way to invade and not just have massive losses, no real way to hurt Iran outside of war crimes (they did those too but to little effect on Iran’s ability to rule). This “war” I think was more impactful as the end of the us empire’s mythos, they just showed the world they have very real limits and are no longer the super power they have claimed to be.
They won the opening act, and the operation was one of the best ever pulled off but they lost the overall conflict when they had to abandon Iraq. Although Gulf War 1 and 2 are studied as examples of great execution of a military strike campaign. The issue is that unlike the Gulf Wars where the us did strikes then claimed the win (with some oil set on fire), in 2003 they did the strikes, then stuck around. The us never wins in a conflict where they have to hold conquered ground, they are really bad with it. I can’t think of a time they have succeeded, WW1 and 2 they did not have to hold territory alone, and more or less liberated and joint occupied places, in Korea they fucked up and got China involved leading to a never ending conflict that is still technically going, they got their ass kicked out of Vietnam, Bay of pigs was a failure before it really got anywhere, and then there is Afghanistan a total mess.
The wild part to me is that a lot of these conflicts are listed as US wins, or inconclusive when by any real measure they where all massive fuck ups. This last one with Iran did not even get to a point where the US was even getting to the point they where threatened Iran’s government, let alone an occupation. Like it was not even possible for the states to get to the point of prior wars before, no real way to invade and not just have massive losses, no real way to hurt Iran outside of war crimes (they did those too but to little effect on Iran’s ability to rule). This “war” I think was more impactful as the end of the us empire’s mythos, they just showed the world they have very real limits and are no longer the super power they have claimed to be.